Generalized Mass–Horizon Relation

• The generalized mass–horizon relation is a framework that generalizes the standard M ∝ L law by introducing an entropic exponent n and a normalization parameter γ, which modify energy and entropy scaling.
• It links deviations from the standard mass-radius and entropy-area relations to power-law deformations, recovering Bekenstein–Hawking entropy at n = 1 and aligning with Tsallis, Barrow, and quantum corrections for other n-values.
• The modified relation has key implications for cosmology and black-hole thermodynamics, yielding altered Friedmann dynamics and effective gravitational models across various thermodynamic formulations.

The generalized mass–horizon relation is a class of deformations of the standard linear relation between the mass associated with a horizon and the horizon size. In its simplest and most widely used form, it replaces $M \propto L$ by

$M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$

for cosmological horizons, or equivalently

$M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$

in black-hole notation, where $n>0$ is an entropic exponent and $\gamma$ is a normalization parameter with dimension $[L]^{1-n}$. When this scaling is combined with the Clausius relation and the standard Hawking temperature, the corresponding horizon entropy becomes a power law,

$$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$

so the proposal is simultaneously a modification of the mass–radius relation and of the entropy–area law. The framework has been developed in entropic cosmology, black-hole thermodynamics, and modified-gravity reconstructions based on the Iyer–Wald formalism (Gohar et al., 2023, Mondal et al., 23 Jun 2026).

1. Standard limit and basic definitions

In standard GR, the Schwarzschild metric,

$$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$

has horizon radius $r_S=2GM$, horizon area $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$, and Bekenstein–Hawking entropy

$M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$0

Thus the standard relations are linear in the horizon radius and linear in the horizon area: $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$1 The generalized mass–horizon relation replaces the linear mass–radius law by the nonlinear ansatz

$M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$2

or, for a cosmological horizon of radius $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$3,

$M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$4

The standard limit is recovered at $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$5, with the precise normalization depending on convention: $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$6 reproduces the usual scaling in the entropic-cosmology literature, while $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$7 reproduces the Misner–Sharp/Schwarzschild normalization (Mondal et al., 23 Jun 2026, Basilakos et al., 31 Mar 2025).

This basic two-parameter form was later embedded in a broader family with additional deformation parameters $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$8, $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$9, and $M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$0, designed to interpolate between the linear case, nonextensive power laws, and quantum-corrected entropies. In that extension, the linear relation is recovered for $M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$1 and $M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$2, and the extra parameters control scale-dependent corrections around that limit (Gohar, 8 Oct 2025).

2. Entropy from the Clausius relation

The defining thermodynamic step is to keep the Hawking temperature fixed and infer the entropy from the generalized mass–horizon law. For black holes, one uses

$M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$3

while for the apparent horizon of FRW spacetime one uses

$M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$4

Imposing the Clausius relation,

$M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$5

with the generalized mass–horizon relation yields the generalized mass-to-horizon entropy

$M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$6

In cosmological notation the same result is written as

$M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$7

Hence

$M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$8

For $M=\frac{\gamma}{G}\,r_{\text{hor}}^{\,n}$9 and $n>0$0, one recovers exactly $n>0$1 (Mondal et al., 23 Jun 2026, Basilakos et al., 31 Mar 2025).

Because the entropy exponent is tied directly to the mass exponent, the framework subsumes several previously proposed nonextensive entropies. Specific identifications given in the literature include $n>0$2 for Tsallis–Cirto entropy, $n>0$3 for Zamora–Tsallis entropy, and $n>0$4 for Barrow entropy. In this sense the generalized mass–horizon relation functions as a common thermodynamic generator for a family of entropy deformations while preserving the standard Hawking temperature (Sheykhi, 19 Dec 2025).

3. Cosmological realizations and modified Friedmann dynamics

When the generalized entropy is applied to the apparent horizon of FRW spacetime, the first law or Clausius relation yields modified Friedmann equations. In one standard derivation, the generalized second Friedmann equation takes the form

$n>0$5

which integrates to

$n>0$6

For flat space these equations can be rewritten in GR form with an effective dark-energy sector,

$n>0$7

with

$n>0$8

In this representation, $n>0$9 controls the power $\gamma$0, and the model reduces to $\gamma$1CDM at $\gamma$2 (Basilakos et al., 31 Mar 2025).

The same modified Friedmann structure has been recovered through more than one thermodynamic route. A first-law treatment on the apparent horizon and a Padmanabhan-style cosmic-emergence construction both yield

$\gamma$3

which supports the internal thermodynamic consistency of the generalized mass–horizon ansatz across distinct emergent-gravity formalisms (Sheykhi, 19 Dec 2025). A related non-equilibrium entropy-balance treatment likewise reproduces

$\gamma$4

and analyzes entropy growth, entropy maximization, and horizon-energy fluctuations within the same framework (Shameeem et al., 12 May 2026).

A significant model-dependent subtlety concerns the special value $\gamma$5. In the Hubble-horizon entropic-force formulation, $\gamma$6 implies $\gamma$7, the entropic density becomes constant, and the resulting cosmology is exactly equivalent to $\gamma$8CDM (Gohar et al., 2023). By contrast, in apparent-horizon Clausius formulations the Friedmann equation contains explicit factors of $\gamma$9, so $[L]^{1-n}$0 is singular and excluded as a regular parameter value (Basilakos et al., 31 Mar 2025, Shameeem et al., 12 May 2026). The status of $[L]^{1-n}$1 is therefore not universal; it depends on the specific thermodynamic implementation.

4. Black holes, Wald entropy, and modified-gravity reconstruction

In black-hole thermodynamics, the central question is whether the generalized mass-to-horizon entropy can be derived from a gravitational action rather than simply postulated. Within the Iyer–Wald formalism, the entropy of a stationary horizon is

$[L]^{1-n}$2

and for $[L]^{1-n}$3 gravity in four dimensions this reduces to

$[L]^{1-n}$4

For constant-curvature, spherically symmetric vacuum solutions with

$[L]^{1-n}$5

matching the Wald entropy to the generalized mass-to-horizon entropy reconstructs an effective Lagrangian of the form

$[L]^{1-n}$6

so that, up to affine shifts and rescalings, the gravitational sector behaves as a power-law deformation $[L]^{1-n}$7. Expanding near $[L]^{1-n}$8 then gives

$[L]^{1-n}$9

which is precisely the first-order Taylor expansion of the generalized entropy around the GR limit. In the same construction, the black-hole heat capacity can become positive for $$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$0 close to 1, with a stability estimate $$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$1 across the observational black-hole mass range, while cosmological nucleosynthesis constraints on the associated $$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$2 theory imply $$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$3 (Mondal et al., 23 Jun 2026).

A conceptually distinct but related route starts from Jacobson’s thermodynamic derivation of gravity. If the horizon entropy is written as

$$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$4

then the effective coupling becomes

$$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$5

and the Schwarzschild relation is replaced by

$$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$6

Within this approach, logarithmic entropy corrections correspond to

$$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$7

while the Tsallis case yields a thermodynamic mass

$$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$8

This reformulates generalized mass–horizon relations as a consequence of area-dependent effective couplings rather than as a primary scaling ansatz (Lu et al., 2024).

5. Observational, structure-formation, and early-universe constraints

Late-time background analyses already show that the preferred deviation from the standard entropy is model dependent. In the apparent-horizon generalized mass-to-horizon entropy cosmology with $$S\propto L^{n+1}\propto \mathcal{A}^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$9 fixed to unity, a Bayesian fit to CC+SNIa+BAO gave

$$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$0

and the model reproduced a standard matter-to-dark-energy transition with a late de Sitter attractor (Basilakos et al., 31 Mar 2025). By contrast, a later DESI DR2 BAO analysis of the two-parameter $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$1 framework found best fits in the approximate range

$$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$2

with $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$3CDM lying within $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$4 and the Akaike Information Criterion mildly favoring the cosmological constant despite slightly smaller $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$5 for the entropic model (Luciano et al., 18 Aug 2025). The numerical preference for $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$6 above or below unity is therefore not yet stable across formulations and datasets.

When large-scale-structure growth is added, the amplitude parameter becomes crucial. In one Hubble-horizon entropic analysis, strong coupling $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$7 was decisively disfavored with $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$8, whereas weak coupling $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_2^2,$$9 made the cosmological parameters nearly indistinguishable from $r_S=2GM$0CDM and could be moderately favored in Bayesian comparison, with $r_S=2GM$1 to $r_S=2GM$2 (Denkiewicz et al., 26 Dec 2025). A perturbation analysis in the generalized mass-to-horizon entropic cosmology also showed that the fully perturbed Bekenstein branch follows the $r_S=2GM$3CDM matter-growth history within current growth uncertainties (Ali et al., 11 Jul 2025).

Early-universe probes impose further restrictions. A primordial-gravitational-wave analysis of the generalized mass-to-horizon entropy model found that $r_S=2GM$4 enhances the relic spectrum while $r_S=2GM$5 suppresses it, yielding an approximate pulsar-timing lower bound

$r_S=2GM$6

and a prospective BBO sensitivity to

$r_S=2GM$7

for detectable inflationary backgrounds (Luciano, 1 Oct 2025). Gravitational baryogenesis in the same thermodynamic framework gives a different constraint: because the modified Friedmann evolution makes $r_S=2GM$8 during radiation domination, the observed baryon asymmetry at $r_S=2GM$9 requires

$\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$0

i.e. a small sub-Bekenstein deviation $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$1 (Luciano et al., 3 Nov 2025).

6. Generalizations, conceptual issues, and open directions

Beyond the two-parameter power law, a more general mass-to-horizon relation has been proposed in which the linear term is dressed by deformation parameters $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$2, $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$3, and $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$4, with $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$5 and $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$6 recovering the standard linear case. In that formulation, Bekenstein–Hawking, Tsallis–Cirto, Barrow, and leading quantum/entanglement corrections all arise from one geometric-thermodynamic scheme, with the mass–horizon relation treated as the primary input and the entropy obtained from

$\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$7

at fixed Hawking temperature (Gohar, 8 Oct 2025). This broadens the notion of generalized mass–horizon relation from a single power law to a family of thermodynamic dictionaries relating horizon size, energy, and entropy.

Background cosmology, however, sharply limits how far such dictionaries can depart from the standard area law. In the Cai–Kim formulation with the generalized $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$8 entropy, viable standard-area-law extensions require $\mathcal{A}_{\text{hor}}=16\pi G^2M^2$9 to lie extremely close to 1, pure rescalings with $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$00 require

$M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$01

entanglement corrections are viable only in a narrow region near $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$02, and quantum-gravity corrections are suppressed by the Planck scale and observationally irrelevant for the cosmological background (Prasanthan et al., 30 Jun 2026). This suggests that thermodynamic consistency alone does not guarantee phenomenological viability; background evolution strongly compresses the admissible parameter space toward the Bekenstein–Hawking limit.

Several conceptual issues remain open. One is the status of quasi-locality: in Jacobson-based reconstructions the effective coupling can depend on horizon area, which makes the field equations area dependent and raises conservation-law ambiguities (Lu et al., 2024). Another is the geometric origin of $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$03: for $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$04, the Misner–Sharp relation provides a clear GR interpretation, but a comparably canonical geometric mass for generic $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$05 is not yet established in the entropic-cosmology constructions (Sheykhi, 19 Dec 2025). A further open problem is formulation dependence: apparent horizon versus Hubble horizon, equilibrium versus non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and Clausius versus entropic-force implementations can shift both the special limits and the inferred observationally preferred values of $M=\gamma\,\frac{c^2}{G}\,L^n$06.

Taken together, these developments indicate that the generalized mass–horizon relation is best understood as a constrained program rather than a single equation. Its common core is the insistence that any generalized horizon entropy must be accompanied by a compatible horizon energy law if Hawking temperature and the Clausius relation are to be retained. Within that program, the standard Bekenstein–Hawking relation remains the dominant phenomenological attractor, while small deviations continue to be explored as possible links between horizon thermodynamics, black-hole stability, cosmic acceleration, primordial observables, and modified gravity.